Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Recreation And Trails topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge borough to enforce commercial ATV rules and collect fees as trails expand near Otter Lake
Summary
Local residents told the Assembly that commercial ATV and ‘fat‑truck’ tour operations have expanded trails around Burrell Lands and Otter Lake, degrading habitat and private property and raising safety concerns; residents urged the borough to collect existing permit fees and create or enforce non‑motorized trail designations.
Residents who use trails outside Otter Lake and Burrell Lands told the Millerborough Assembly the area is now encircled by commercial all‑terrain vehicle (ATV) operations and fat‑tire truck tours, and they urged action to protect non‑motorized access and recover revenue from commercial users.
James Gaughan, who identified himself as a Dry Creek resident, told the assembly the commercial vehicles are now using established trails near his cabin and that trail widening has made horseback riding, cross‑country skiing and walking less safe. “So we are completely 100 percent circled by these activities,” Gaughan said. He described riders and vehicles progressively widening trails by literally pushing out existing track, and said some operators are not meeting prior standards that were in place when the land was managed by the state.
A second public commenter, who identified as Manning Wilson and lives at Mile 228, raised a separate but related concern about a new Department of Transportation pull‑out at Mile 228. Wilson said porta‑potty and trash options are not available there and reported barbed wire strung around trees, animal carcasses and other hazardous debris left after hunting seasons. “There is human waste and horse waste and trash,” Wilson said, characterizing the end‑of‑season condition as a safety hazard for hikers, bikers and riders who use the pull‑out as a trailhead.
Speakers said the borough adopted a fee schedule in early 2024 to collect payments from commercial operators, but residents and the assembly were told the fees were not collected in 2024 or 2025 because the borough had not stood up the administrative process. Gaughan estimated a $5 per vehicle fee at 10–20 vehicles per day could add up into significant revenue over time, and he suggested the borough could use fee proceeds to fund trail assessment and repairs. “If we collected a $100,000 or $200,000, maybe they could go out and make an assessment of the trails,” he said.
Assembly members and the mayor acknowledged the problem and discussed tools the borough could use: enforce existing commercial‑use permit conditions, use fee revenue to fund trail maintenance or non‑motorized trail development, and involve the borough’s outdoor recreation committee or a new dedicated subcommittee to shape policy and enforcement. Mayor Nolan said fee revenue could be deposited to the borough general fund but that investing those funds in land‑management projects “makes a lot of sense.”
Several assembly members suggested a mix of short‑term and longer‑term actions: begin collecting the existing commercial‑use fees as posted, use part of those funds for immediate trail repairs, and convene partners — including commercial operators, user groups and federal land managers where applicable — to build a non‑motorized trail network and an enforcement plan. A council member noted some federal or state land managers (for example, Bureau of Land Management on certain easements) may be the appropriate permit authority for specific routes and encouraged residents to raise those issues directly with the landowner where applicable.
The assembly did not adopt a new policy at this meeting but asked staff and relevant advisory groups to return with options for fee collection, enforcement and trail management that clarify which lands are borough responsibility and which are managed by state or federal agencies.
